Search for: "Garcia v. Garcia" Results 141 - 160 of 2,230
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Roger Parloff
In every bid to transfer venue that Capitol riot defendants have raised, the key precedent the government has cited in response has been the same: Haldeman v. [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 3:48 am by Peter Mahler
“Grammatical Irregularities” Don’t Govern Operating Agreement’s Capital Call Provision  Chen v 697 Dekalb LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 32418(U) [Sup Ct Kings County July 18, 2022]. [read post]
14 Aug 2022, 10:02 pm
Alicia Garcia PriovolosScott Janowitz (I)He has been a member of The Florida Bar for 16 years. [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; Garcia v Polsky, Shouldice & Rosen, P.C., 161 AD3d 828, 830). [read post]
16 Jul 2022, 3:45 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Kim, Yoorim Bang, & Eun Mee Kim, Women’s Empowerment Without Power: Strategic v. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 8:40 am
Garcia (Assault in first degree; motion to suppress; custodial interference) State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 3:50 am by Kyle Hulehan
Recent research by economists Javier Garcia-Bernardo, Petr Janský, and Gabriel Zucman shows the driving force behind a reduction in the share of profits that U.S. companies book abroad was repatriations of IP.[10] As trends continue to develop, U.S. policymakers should study them to understand how the TCJA reforms affect the taxes paid by U.S. multinationals, the destination for U.S. outbound investment, and the location of IP. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm by Public Employment Law Press
" In light of the foregoing, and given that no contrary medical opinions were presented, the Board's factual determination that claimant suffered from an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Garcia v MCI Interiors, Inc., 158 AD3d 907, 908 [2018]; Matter of Curtis v Xerox, 66 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]). [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm by Public Employment Law Press
" In light of the foregoing, and given that no contrary medical opinions were presented, the Board's factual determination that claimant suffered from an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Garcia v MCI Interiors, Inc., 158 AD3d 907, 908 [2018]; Matter of Curtis v Xerox, 66 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]). [read post]